On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Tom Boutell <t...@punkave.com> wrote:
> I don't think a consensus on the following points is likely to emerge > without voting on them individually. I propose carrying out a vote > with up to three questions to be answered depending on your response > to each. We could then proceed to discuss the (relatively boring but > essential) details of keywords and extensions, if any, and create a > final RFC. > > Hopefully all parties can agree to be bound by the results of a vote > on these three questions and work together to create a final RFC that > abides by the result or let the matter drop. > > Let's briefly discuss whether these questions truly represent the > major differences between the three RFCs (not the merits of those > positions please) and then, I hope, carry out a vote on them so we can > move on. > > The Questions: > > 1. Whether a "pure code" mode in which <?php is not required at the > top of a file, and the <?php and ?> tags are not permitted at all in > such a file: > > * Has merit and should be pursued (option 1a), or > * Should be dropped entirely (option 1b). > > If your vote is for option 1a, please respond to the following > additional question: > > 2. Whether "pure code" mode should be: > > * Toggled globally by a php.ini option such that <?php and ?> tags are > completely forbidden when this mode is active (option 2a), or > * Switched on by keywords and SAPI options that allow the sysadmin and > developer to make the choice at runtime, with the ability to make that > choice differently for different files or invocations, so that a mix > of "pure code" files and files that forbid <?php and ?> can exist > (option 2b). > > 3. If your vote is for option 2b, please respond to the following > additional question: > > Whether "pure code" mode should: > > * Forbid requiring a non-pure file from a pure file (option 3a), or > * Permit requiring non-pure files from pure files (option 3b). > Question 3 may not be necessary given a possible new parallel approach being discussed. Please refer to my RFCs thread for details and to weigh in on that. > > I believe Kris Craig and Yasuo Ohgaki will find that these questions > accurately sum up our really significant unreconciled differences > (and, with the inclusion of question 1, the position of those who > don't want the feature at all). > > These three questions deliberately don't address what the keywords or > file extensions or other mechanisms are called exactly, because I > believe those issues to be fairly simple to agree upon once we have > decided the basics. > Overall, I like the idea, but I think it's premature. For my part, I still need more time to brainstorm and discuss. Keep in mind that my RFC was only drafted a few days ago and the RFC process requires a *minimum* of 2 weeks before a vote can be held. I'd prefer to adhere to that rule for the time being. I see no benefit in rushing things. I ask that everybody come back to the table and spend some more time trying to establish where we share common ground. I can't support a vote, at least on my RFC, at this time. > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > hi, > > > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> Perhaps a new list for RFC-specific discussions? =) > > > > We don't need yet a new list. Sit down together and get over your > > differences and create the RFC or more if you can't get over your > > differences. > > > > Cheers, > > -- > > Pierre > > > > @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org > > > > -- > > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > > > > -- > Tom Boutell > P'unk Avenue > 215 755 1330 > punkave.com > window.punkave.com > > -- > PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List > To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php > >
